19 November 2015

Narratives and Villains in Kruse's: One Nation Under God

I recently finished Kevin Kruse's One Nation Under
God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. It was a worthwhile read and I certainly would
recommend it. Like all secular writers he does not fully understand the nuances
of Christian theology and thinking but in terms of the political narrative and
some of the back-story, he does a fine job. Some have argued the book is
something of a non-sequitir, that he doesn't really prove that Corporate
America invented the Christian Right narrative. Admittedly there are problems
with this kind of cut and dry explanation and yet he raises the question within
the book itself and admits that there certainly was a 'Christian' identity
prior to the 1930's. Yet, he demonstrates a shift occurred in light of the New
Deal and the subsequent Cold War that re-cast and re-infused the whole notion
of a 'Christian America' and that the movements worked to tie in these somewhat
romanticised narratives in with specific economic policies and an expression of
civil religion that was not previously seen.

I
don't wish to review the whole book but there were a few points that were of
particular interest to me.

One
was that this work along with Diamond's Roads to Dominion, Sharlet's The
Family, and some of Marsden's works among others continue to demonstrate
the narrative that Evangelical and Bible Believing Christians went to sleep
after the Scopes Trial and only awoke in the late 1970's with the formation of
the Moral Majority is completely flawed and dishonest. It serves a theological
agenda and it's a narrative meant to provoke a response but it's simply untrue.

Though
Kruse does not directly deal with the question I think it would be more proper
to say that by the 1970's an opportunity arose, afforded by Nixon's campaign in
response to 1960's counter-cultural disruptions and especially the Civil Rights
movement, that allowed Christians for the first time since the Civil War, in
fact in the whole of American history to be united by one political party.
Previous to this Christians were split by region and by other considerations. There
was also more diversity in the parties when they operated on a national scale. While
I don't doubt that voting numbers were less than impressive prior to the rise
of the Moral Majority it does not mean that Christians were asleep or inactive.
Some had supported New Deal policies and some were committed to Labour. There
were still some Evangelicals in recent years who growing up during the
Depression liked FDR but at the same time loathed LBJ and The Great Society.
That generation is just about gone.

Today,
all Right-wing conservatives hate both the New Deal and Johnson's Great
Society. The debate today is over America's imperial path in the Progressive
Era and in some cases a re-embracing of the Antebellum South.

Prior
to the late 1960's most Evangelicals in the South were committed to the
Democratic Party which in the North represented immigrants and Labour. The
political spectrum was more diverse. Democratic Populism, the foundation of the
Party manifested itself in very different ways depending on whether you were in
New York or Mississippi. The events of 1964-68 brought Christians solidly into
the Republican Party like never before. These defections continued to escalate
throughout the 1970's and 80's and today there are only a handful of Reagan and
Blue-Dog Democrats left.

While
Falwell and the Moral Majority tried to organize on specifically Christian and
reactionary terms people have forgotten (and I believe have tried to forget)
the great affection and Christian cast that was given to the Nixon administration.
He ultimately disappointed in his economic policies, his turn to China, embrace
of Détente and the eventual exposure of his criminality.

Of
course in my house it was always said that Nixon was no different or more
criminal than any of his predecessors. He simply got caught. Why this was
somehow a morally acceptable statement or one that Christians would find
comfort in is still a mystery to me but I still hear it on occasion. Whether
it's true or not is to miss the point. If such persons really cared about the
supposed integrity of Washington, then they should rejoice in Nixon's exposure
and downfall. But as we are always keen to point out... politics or the
struggle for power creates its own ethics and thus rivals if not explicitly
rejects Christian imperatives.

Kruse
reveals even more of Nixon's sinister and cynical nature. Much of this is not
new for those who have read inside accounts of Nixon's White House or
transcriptions of the infamous tapes. Yet, Kruse has the Christian Right
specifically in mind and focuses on a few salient points in terms of Nixon's
utilization of figures like Billy Graham and how he sought to win and influence
Christian thinking and leadership, even to the point of trying to manipulate
denominational politics through allowing certain potential allies to gain
prominence in their proximity to the Nixon White House.

I was
glad to see Kruse brought out Nixon's moves in light of Kent State and the massive
wave of protests in 1970. After his bizarre and often recounted incident at the
Lincoln Memorial, he used Billy Graham and heavily played the Christian America
card. Nixon hoped to recruit and empower a voice of popular support and open up
a channel of hostility to the protesting youth. The videos of Nixon and Graham
are worth viewing.

Billy
Graham is revered by many and yet I recall many Fundamentalists were
uncomfortable with him at times. Not everyone was such a fan. They loved seeing
him on the television... oh, how well do I remember his Crusades being on when
I was a kid... and believed he served God in preaching the basic gospel.

But
beyond that, many were uncomfortable with his relationships with Jewish and
Catholic leaders and how cozy he became with those in power. His relationship
with Nixon in particular ended up being a source of great shame as Nixon was
revealed as a fraud and hypocrite, someone who was little more than using
Graham and his great influence.

Is
Graham a stooge or is he a fraud as well? God knows. And yet it's hard to not
view him as little more than a court preacher and wholly corrupt. His legacy
must be identified as not only one of failure but of great harm and damage. He
himself will admit that the vast majority of those who 'came forward'... a
wholly unbiblical methodology to be sure... did not persevere and stick with
their profession. But he was content with that because many were saved.

Some
may have been saved in spite of Graham's watered down gospel and his
extra-biblical Finney-esque methods. Yet, how many became mired in confusion and
frustration with Christianity? For years I too suffered as a result of that
wretched 'Invitation System' and it's doctrine of saving faith that is reduced
to little more than assent and absent the need for Biblical repentance.

Graham
truly crossed sea and land to make proselytes but instead made untold millions
the children of Hell. They are responsible. They have Moses and the prophets
but Graham is responsible as well and all the more so when he stood on stages
with Catholics, Jews and other non-Christians and sent 'converts' to these
false and idolatrous temples. Sadly his Dispensationalism allows him to see
Judaism as valid and a way to maintain a relationship with God. This is wholly
contrary to Scripture and a rejection of Christ's claims and exclusivity. His
ecumenicalism and love of pomp and power allowed him to make peace with Rome
and send converts back to the priests to be fed the lies of the sacramental and
sacerdotal system which rejects Christ's work, His grace and His authority.

Though
Kruse doesn't mention it, Graham's statements to Robert Schuller in 1997 leave
one wondering if the man is a genuine believer in Jesus Christ. They are
stunning and represent a sad harvest of one who lost his way.

Billy
Graham though still alive was a man of the Twentieth Century and undoubtedly
must rank as perhaps the greatest and most destructive heretic of that epoch.
He was a Cold War court preacher for the American Empire. America was his
religion not the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Kruse's
book exposes how he was used and how corrupted and syncretistic his own
thinking was with regard to America and the Kingdom of God. Graham is an
idolater and rejects the ethics of Scripture. He's a mammon worshipper and for
those who don't know it now, it will be made clear on that Day.

Another
figure that is briefly mentioned but his name jumps from the page due to his
associations with Nixon is that of Charles Colson. Kruse does not focus on
Colson but his mentions of him are quite interesting. Colson was a willing participant
in using and manipulating Christians to serve the purposes of the
administration and Kruse gives some examples.

Why is
this interesting? Because supposedly on the one hand Colson was repentant about
his past and the way power corrupted him. And yet certainly during the 1990's
and 2000's I repeatedly heard him boast of his 'service' during the Nixon
administration. The narrative seemed to change. According to Colson, Nixon was
right and his policies were right. Colson wasn't repentant of his association
with a criminal administration. He only seemed troubled by a few aspects of it.
Otherwise he was quite proud to have been a part of it and willingly
demonstrated it when people praised and thanked him for 'serving' the United
States during that time. He was unrepentant about Nixon's deceptions of which
he played a crucial part. Instead he seemed to relish in Left-bashing and
promoting if not rehabilitating the image of the administration.

In the
end Colson's repentance must be labeled as fraudulent. He was proud of his evil
manipulations and the fruit of his power struggles. When you consider the fact
that he was manipulating Christians and ecclesiastical denominations for the
political posturing and gain of the Nixon administration, you would think he
would be deeply ashamed. As I've mentioned before his response to the
revelation that Mark Felt was Deep Throat was also telling. He wasn't glad that
Nixon's corruption was halted and that an administration involved in wanton
criminality was exposed. No, he was still bitter even after thirty years.

Colson,
Graham and Nixon...wolves in sheep's
clothing. These were evil men making merchandise of God's people. Merchandise
doesn't always have to translate into actual coin in the hand.

Oddly
enough as an Anti-Sacralist I can find some sympathy with the secular forces at
work to counter the Christo-American heresy. This also is not new. Huguenots
benefitted from the French Revolution and the fall of the House of Bourbon.
Many Protestant minorities benefitted from Enlightenment tolerance. Christian
Sacralism is the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity and it has always
been so. Better a Turk than a Habsburg.

The
Secularists rejected 'In God We Trust' by appealing to America's intellectual
history and philosophical pedigree represented by the ideas within the
Constitution... a document that is patently 'not' Christian to say the least.
The Declaration's 'Creator' is at best a Deistic deity and Kruse doesn't even
touch on the patent contradiction in the document that claims Creator-given
inalienable rights and yet also presents a social contract expressed by the
consent of the governed. The Constitution further confuses this issue by
allowing the consenting governed to create inalienable rights.

Not a
few Christians have realized the problem inherent in the US construction and
that's why many Christians worked (albeit wrongly) to make the Constitution explicitly
'Christian'.

The
Libertarian wing which is presently ascendant does not understand the issues
behind the Declaration... it was hardly a call for less government! Nor do they
grasp the basic requirements for the Capitalist system to flourish... a nation
state with strong institutions, courts and a police force to enforce its
dictates. The eradication of the state would in the end be their undoing. Part
of me wants them to learn this lesson, but the process would be so ugly another
part of me hopes they fail and the movement dies. This isn't likely.

One
needs to only revisit the early oil days of the mid 19th century Pennsylvania
or much of the Old West to find out what a truly Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist
society looks like. It's violent, destructive and ugly. I was also reminded of
this recently with the massive biker shootout that took place in Waco Texas.
Apparently the gun libertarians don't seem to realize that's the end result. If
everyone is carrying firearms then you're going to end up with endless replays
of that incident. Most Americans think we've moved past the Wild West but I
suppose when it's been romanticised the lessons won't be learned. They would do
well to watch Ken Burn's documentary on The West. It provides an excellent
summary. He's hardly unsympathetic to America and its narratives but he tells
enough of the truth to dispel the common mythology of John Wayne's America...
one that I used to love passionately. I still enjoy his movies on occasion but
I definitely see them through different eyes.

Secularists
war for historical truth and ideas but ultimately for the wrong reasons.

We
oppose Civil and Ceremonial Deism because it's a lie. We find no comfort in the
name of a god on currency and monuments or in idolatrous ceremonial utterances.
The 'god' of Christian America is not the God of Scripture. The 'god' in the
Pledge and the 'god' on the currency are not the God that reveals Himself in
the Person of Jesus Christ. We hope to see all such references removed. We
would hope then that Christians would recover their identity as strangers and
pilgrims.

Instead
they will wail and weep for their lost Tammuz and seek the resurrection of
their false mammon-god.